I know there’s been a fair bit of missed updates lately; it’s really a compound problem between a whole lot of things slowly piling up and I’ve simply had a need to take it easy and address things one thing at a time.

As for this page, like the prior it ties into Te’len and where she’s headed. All of this was dialogue I had wanted to get into the Deadmines, but really didn’t find the space to, so it’s ended up here instead. I felt it really had to happen before.. certain other things happen.

Hani and Te’len really are going through changes and a first spark of it is to be seen now.
It is classical. Go through a underworld, face death and you won’t leave unchanged.
It is like the archetypical quest of a hero, seen thousands and thousands of times.
And in this story it is wonderful subtle.
Gratulations! You are connected to ancient myths. More than ever.
I bless the day i discovered this little gem of yours.

2. NEVER allow a gun to point in an unsafe direction. Unsafe directions include towards anything you don’t want to destroy, and towards any barrier that you can fire but not see through. Unspecified regions between one’s own waist and one’s own head CERTAINLY qualify.

3. NEVER put your finger on the trigger, or even inside the trigger guard, until you have your sights lined up on a valid target.

4. NEVER fire at an unidentified target or towards an uncertain backstop.

Oh dear, I am rather surprised by the pro-violence responses on this page, both explicit and implicit. To balance out the spreading of these opinions, allow me to share a bit of mine, using the old proverb: “Live by the sword, die by the sword” as a stepping stone. It’ll be a bit of a brainstorm and rather long, so feel free to skip this post if you’re not feeling philosophical ,-)

At the core of this proverb is the belief that inflicting violence on a regular basis will eventually cause regret. Wielding the sword, a symbol for wisdom, does not make wise, it requires wisdom. Proponents of violence usually base their arguments on a right of self-determination and a need to protect that right to the best of their abilities. Hence, they express a need for the “sword”. What remains to be seen, is if they possess the “wisdom” to wield it. This, it seems, is not true for every individual. Actually, it is rather complex.

Many problems of violence, however, do not arise when looked at the strictly individual level, but become visible when we monitor conflicts between individuals, especially in those cases where each individual is convinced of their own right. In these cases, such conflicts can be easily put as “They all want something, but it’s not possible for them all to get it”. Hence, each individual defending their right will result in each individual deny and infringe on the rights of the other individuals.

Now, if we add violence to the mix, this is where things will turn ugly. For clarity, the definition of violence according to the Oxford Dictionary: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Using this to “enforce your rights” in a situation where “your rights” conflict with “someone else’s” rights equals “denying another’s rights by use of physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill the other”. Sounds dirty, doesn’t it?

So, what is needed to make this “might” be “right”? Up to now, I have only mentioned an individual’s “perceived” rights. Hence “I believe I’m entitled to this”, according to proponents of violence as defence of individual rights, leads to “I am allowed to hurt, damage or kill another when I believe I’m right”. Put several individuals together with conflicting interests, and the result will be an iteration of violence that will only end until one individual has forced his or her views upon all the others and that individual has effectively prevented any returning violence.

What has begun as a blissful state of anarchy, “Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual”, has turned into a warzone: “A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.”

Now, where does the reasoning go astray? Because seriously, this is obviously not the way violence proponents envision things. It seems that the core of all problems is the fact that “not everybody agrees”. Well… isn’t that a downer.

Luckily, we’ve come up with a possible solution for this problem. It’s called authority: “The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience”. In fact, it’s what is established after said warzone has ended and one group has enforced dominance. Usually, we call those groups “governments”, for easy reference. And to avoid returning to said warzone, these governments are required to prevent any violence inflicted upon them by individuals that do not agree with the government’s notion of “right”. This is done firstly by letting people know what “right” is, for example by writing it down in, say, laws. Secondly, by instituting people who enforce these laws. Thirdly, by limiting the free use of violence by anyone that does not represent the government or its sense of “right”.

Sounds like a bummer. In this reasoning, the only reason we individuals can sit on our porch safely, while pondering our wishes and rights, without fearing disproportional violence is because we “know” what is expected of us. We know what the government wants us to do in order for us to do the “right” thing and as long as we obey, the strongest group around will leave us be.

Back to the individual level. Now we have an orderly society. In it, we recognise two groups of people. Those who comply, and those who rebel. Examples of rebelling through violence are people who turn to (armed) robbery, who are guilty of domestic violence, who participate in (street) gangs, etcetera. These are people that are in conflict with the state. There is a “war” going on between the government and these people, which is called “crime fighting”.

And then there’s the rest. This rest can be divided into two subgroups as well: people that have not been a victim to “crime”, and those that have. Those that haven’t can live easily and discuss this topic theoretically. But their lives have mainly been so relaxed, because the country they live in is “stable”. (Feel free to look up the criteria of a stable nation for more background).

The others, those confronted by “crime”, have a choice: Delegate their interest in the “war against crime” to the government, or do it themselves. Proponents of violence often are “do it yourself” people, that state that once confronted by crime, you need to act to get out on top.

The problem is that an individual has no authority. An error by an individual using violence is often grave. In one split second, that individual can be transformed from a member of “the rest” to a member of “crime”. People are not omniscient and it is easy to make an error of judgement. And once you do err in violence, there’s no turning back: the consequences are often too grave. Killing an innocent or undermining the order, for example, cannot be undone.

So how much leeway must the government give individuals? Using violence to defend ones own rights is a purely individual course and leads to anarchy. Regulating it is required for stability, yet as a consequence, victims of crime have less means to cope. Where is that delicate balance?

In my humble opinion, that balance is not even close to “I’ll do what I want, because that’ll get me what I want”. That reasoning is flawed beyond belief, since that level of individuality is drained from all common cause and abstains of all collective wisdom. People that “hurt, damage or kill” for their own gain, will eventually force an equal reaction, damaging themselves and as a result, their surroundings and those that care about them.

“You need to be aggressive in life”. Aggression, “feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour”. When is this useful? To oppress the non-violent into accepting your ideals? Or as a shielding response to other violence? If the former, then oh dearie. If the latter, then why propagate the very act that forces your hand in the first place?

Would there be a conclusion to this rant? Yes, violence is a required tool in achieving stability, yet it should grow above the individual. This is, ironically, the very lesson that Hani seems to have trouble with herself, whereas Tyrande seems to realise this very well. It seems to be part of the conflict between them: Hani wishes to do well but looks at problems from an individual perspective. Tyrande looks at her entire people and sees the conflicts between her people. She sees the need to keep the peace between the individuals, by accepting the burden of violence at a higher level. Out of the hands of the people, into the hands of those that guide them.

You know what? I agree with you 100%. While Violence does solve problems, It shouldn’t be the first choice. War is the last resort when all other political avenues have failed. I don’t oppose the non-violent stance, I just don’t see it gaining the desired result most of the time.

I know that kind of contradicts what I said in my post earlier, and I don’t apollogize for that. This is human nature, to change my mind and feelings from one minute to the next. I am, by nature, a random person.

To Yerdiss: A response to your assertions.
I must first ask your apology, because I do not know your background. Literally, your culture, area of origin, your beliefs and mores. I think I must state my own so as to be as clear as possible: I am an American, I am conservative, and I believe in the foundation of the this country’s laws (from English Common law all the way back through the Judeo-Christian worldview to the Greek philosophy and logic).

The central error I see with your thesis, is that you postulate that government, a person or persons with power over other persons, is the source of human rights. This country was founded on the principal that an entity greater than any human (in government or not) has established these rights for all humans: life, freedom, private property, and that any logical investigation into the source of these rights will implicitly lead back to that foundation- the notion that something (we need not agree on what or Whom)greater than humans has established these inside all humanity.

Any dispute about rights must boil down to one of those three basics: life, freedom, property. Yes, a government is established by people to rule, but any government is considered legitimate only in so far as its rulings accord to those foundational rights. With regard to a person who violates another persons rights, the government is usually the authority to rule against the criminal, and on behalf of the victim. On a large scale, the government’s response to a group of criminals is usually an army. However, the point to remember, is that these rights belong to the people, and it is wholly legitimate for the people to assert and defend their rights against criminals where the government in power is unwilling to, unable to, or worse, is illegitimate. Where the apparent valid rights of people conflict, we have the civil (not criminal) courts.

So, when the Defias invade Daphne Stilwell’s orchard, and announce their intent to steal her property, it is her absolute right to kill all of them. Especially since Good King Varian has proven unwilling or unable to suppress the criminals, and the Westfall militia have not gotten there in time.

So no, it does not sound dirty to me at all to be willing to hurt, maim, or kill the Defias, since they have no right to the Stilwell orchard.

By the way, the same authority that grants rights can just as easily revoke them, so I would caution you against relying on humans to guarantee you your rights. You need to safeguard your own rights, or be willing to lose them.

I’m one of those proponents of self-defense. IMO, laws are not just because they are laws, but because they are just.

You deserve better than a tautology. Just laws defend the individual’s rights to life (the right not to be killed or harmed), liberty (the right not to be coerced or defrauded), and property (the right not to have what is yours taken from you without consent).

As far as I can tell, the core flaw in your reasoning is presuming that this following statement is fact: “Using violence to defend ones own rights is a purely individual course and leads to anarchy.”

You are completely right to denigrate aggression. Just laws do just the same. It is worth noting that the most violent, destructive, and aggressive groups of people on earth are almost universally governments.

Before we continue, let me thank you for your responses. Sharing opinions and viewpoints are quintessential. I very much enjoy such discussions and value your insights.

I’ll split my response in two parts. Clarification where needed, and reaction to new arguments. Allow me to state my postulates on which I base my reasoning:

“No individual is able to assert ultimate truth or discern right from wrong. Any individual that strives to, is limited to opinion based on their frame of reference. An individual chooses to believe, but cannot know. An individual can reason, but reason requires a starting point, axioms if you will.”

“An individual has only one viewpoint: their own. Any interaction between individuals is therefore restricted by to each individual’s limitations in understanding the others.”

I expect the most drastic differences between our respective opinions, can be explained using these two postulates. I believe that I do not “have” rights, but I can try to “claim” rights. Also, I believe that any right I claim, is no more or less than any rights claimed by others. If someone else believes it is their “right” to break my window and steal my property, I believe they are fully entitled to try. Also, it is possible to try to give another rights, or claim it for another. Note that in this, there is always an individual subject, the “me” that perceives these rights.

However, and this is where things become complex. Any response will trigger a reaction. If someone claims their right to break my window and steal my property, do I or do I not claim the right to smash in their skull with a fishbowl? If I do, does someone else claim the right to arrest me and imprison me? If they do, do I claim the right to call some of my less savoury friends, to snipe the judge out of spite? If I do, does someone else claim the right to…

Actions trigger reactions. And experience does seem to indicate that violence begets violence. So, regardless of any “right” I want, is it actually smart to claim this “right”? Since frankly, I believe that since I believe I cannot know the absolute truth of whether my sense of right is actually right, or might be wrong, I have no basis for my claim, except “I want”. There is no universal higher entity that whispered in my ears “You are allowed to do this”. There’s just a whole lot of opinions and texts and dogmas, many of which claim they have been approved by a higher authority. However, since I as an individual have no means to discern the absolute truth behind those claims, it changes nothing: I cannot know. Everything I do is based on my own assumptions. I and I alone shall be held responsible for my actions. If not by a higher entity, then maybe a stronger human authority. If not by a stronger human authority, then maybe by an unforeseen reaction to my action. If not by an unforeseen reaction to my action, then maybe by my own conscience.

Now, the core of my post was not to deny anyone the right to claim their “rights”. But to warn that actions of violence, regardless of any right or wrong, may lead to very undesirable results. Also, I wished to clarify that the often seen pattern of “resolving conflict through violence” inevitably leads to “the strongest group” dominating through violence. Also, this is not a matter of this strongest group “be absolutely and truthfully right”, but them being the only ones that managed to actually “enforce their own perceived right” and claiming the authority to “enforce their vision of right and wrong on others”. Following this, I tried to relay that, though not perfect, there are a lot of benefits to this way of viewing things. It simplifies the discussion to three parties: “Me”, “Someone else” and “The big strong guy with an office and an army behind him”.

Now, to respond to what I read on your respective replies. No, I do not believe governments are the source of human rights. Not at all. Governments are just “the stronger opinion” in a country. However, as time progresses, several governments seem to have realised that human rights is a topic that they need to take a stance on, if they are to regulate the people. However, the government’s stance on human rights is still but an opinion. One of many possible perspectives of which no individual can judge an ultimate truth. Individuals can agree or disagree, and choose to react or not.

Also, it is interesting to see Sintra taking “life”, “freedom”, and “property” as basic rights but a few lines apart from “when the Defias invade Daphne Stilwell’s orchard, and announce their intent to steal her property, it is her absolute right to kill all of them.” I cannot but translate this to either “My main principles are my life, my freedom and my property.” or “Anyone breaking any of the principles of life, freedom and property, forfeits them all.” The former translation demonstrates my point as rights being individual claims and having no higher authority than the ability of an individual to claim them. Which means that if you value “your property” and someone else also values “your property”, there’s a conflict that cannot be resolved by claiming the superiour right. Doing so, would be claiming one individual is superior, the other inferior. It would lead to a very uncomfortable ubermench philosophy.

However, the second translation allows the following flow of events: “Someone steals your property. You kill someone, but by taking a life, you forfeit your own right to a life, freedom and property.” As such, you would become a pariah without rights. Were we to brand everybody that has infringed rights of life, freedom or property, then we would have a situation where, given enough people that have been branded, society would split in two: people that have to respect the three rights, and people that have lost it all, but as a result can do everything they like until they die.

In no way can I rationalise how such a claim leads to anything else than an unending spiral of violence. Only coincidence would allow people to live without being the victim of “conflicting rights” or “pariahs”. Well, actually, this is exactly how things are in a state where violence is not regulated.

Now, I have seen in the replies and links posted, a dire fear of government and government abuse of power. All I can say to this is: Yes, it is possible. When I take my own previous post as a basis, then government is nothing more than “the group that managed to take control”. In no way does this say anything about the style of government. It may be a benign ruling where the people are respected and rights believed to be given my a higher entity are held in sacred regard. It also may be an oppressive regime where the leaders enrich themselves and any individual posing a threat is exterminated. It matters not. As an individual, there are only two ways to deal with a government: obey and do what they want, or fight them. The latter, however, brings back the spiral of violence. Also, the latter is motivated by disagreement, but using my previously mentioned postulates, neither party holds the absolute truth. Still, it may well be worth it to overthrow a government, if it does not take care of its people sufficiently. It is a matter of critical mass. A government rules because it is the strongest party around that is willing to engage in open conflict, not because it is “right”. If enough people disagree, a stronger party might arise. Also, a stronger party from an outside country might join the open conflict, because the “sense of right” of both contries conflict. However, the level of violence that this might lead to is truly appalling. We have several real life examples to look at to see how people suffer in such a state.

Again, the most important conclusion I wish to draw: Having individuals abstain from violence is a requirement for stability. However, I shall nuance by adding: Stability will not necessarily lead to individual happiness or prosperity. Sometimes, an individual chooses to act. If this happens, again, it is not a matter of right or wrong. But any actions will invoke a response. A response might be unpleasant. It might be unforeseen. But is has to be accepted.

I believe people have the right to choose and act. I also believe people often choose or act without thinking. I notice people often try to justify their acts with fallacies. Often, these justifications are based upon “me” placing most value on the “I” and less on the “other“. What I find lacking, is the ability for people to except the consequence of their actions. The fact that “I” believe I have the “right” to do something, does not make it so. If the “other” believes something else, conflict arises. How to deal with conflict? I know many means, and violence is far from the number one. Extreme measures invoke extreme responses and as such are difficult to control and manage. It up’s the ante, and often people realise too late that they’ve taken on more than they can handle. Why let loose a bull to squash a mosquito when a flyswatter works fine, without all the collateral damage? There are many ways to focus energy or apply force that are not intent to hurt, damage or kill.

—

On to another point. “Using violence to defend ones own rights is a purely individual course and leads to anarchy.” It is true that this is not fact. It is a deduction, as follows. Axiom one: Government stability is based on a monopoly of violence. Axiom two: Rights are not universal, but individually perceived. Any individual has their own opinions on what rights they believe they have. Axiom three: Individual acts that influence other individuals, always invoke a response. Axiom four: Government is an organisation of many individuals that share a certain set of “perceived rights” and have claimed the authority to enforce those over a larger group of people, a country. Deduction: When an individual acts based on a right, this act is not necessarily acceptable by individuals who do not share the belief in that right. Individuals that react to violence, may also respond by violence. When too many individuals use violence, the monopoly of violence is broken and the stability of the government is endangered. When the stability of the government is sufficiently broken, their authority ends and their role in society once again equals that of just a number of individuals. A society with only individuals whose individual choices and actions are the sole base of structure, is called Anarchy. Hence, “Using violence to defend ones own rights is a purely individual course and leads to anarchy” is borne.

Lastly, “It is worth noting that the most violent, destructive, and aggressive groups of people on earth are almost universally governments”. I can agree on this statement. In my reasoning, it would flow from the assumption that governments are “the strongest group around” giving them the power to be violent, destructive and aggressive on the largest scale. Also, on the assumption that there are no universal rights and governments are formed on the basis of a group of individuals that share certain ideas, it is fully understandable some governments are based on the wish for self enrichment or worse. All that’s needed for this, is for the people that share those malign ideas, to gather and be the strongest.

I do not condone this, mind you. I merely state that violence seems to inevitably distils into “a strongest group”, and that we all can recognise examples of this by looking at our governments. I also state that – and this is not even a deduction, it is merely a notion – power that is shaped by violence, takes time to erode. Violence is a negative act, in my opinion. Therefore, I believe fresh governments are, by this assumption, less pleasant than older governments, since violence still rules more in fresh governments. This is the reason why I value the stability of the governments that have proven to be “not of the worst kind”. Unfortunately, to find a government “of the best kind” might pose quite a challenge.

Opposing “not the best government” via violence, seeing its inherently difficult to control nature, might not lead to a “better government”. And having “no government” seems to be only possible in a transient state between governments, as far as history tells.

So yes, violence happens. Sometimes, an individual seems to have little choice but violence if he or she values something enough to want to defend it. I do sincerely hope, however, that people learn to think once, twice and thrice before utilising such a dangerous tool as violence. Violence is not a universal right. It is quite the terrible act and it invokes responses. Tutoring to use it lightly, in my opinion, is bad tutelage.

Ah, but by sayin that there are no absolutes, you have destroyed any basis for any logic in your own reasoning. (And besides, is that statement itself not an absolute?).

Second, you say that the assertion of a right is nothing more than a claim of “betterness”, that one person is better than another due to either a claim to larger amounts of property, or greater military power. By invoking that comparison, you are implicitly appealing to a standard of better and worse that you assume actually exists, is greater than any human, that humans can be measured by this standard, and that I am somehow “corrupting” this standard. You also use the term “ubermench” which immediately invites association with Nazi Germany and the eugenics movement practised by Hitler and the National Socialists. I not only refuse this label, I argue it fits better with your own position.

My point was that (and it should be self-evident) the Defias had no claim to the Stilwell orchard. It was never their property. They had zero property rights to it. By your own reasoning, because they (for a short term) had greater military power, they had the “right” to take it. I completely disagree. They had no right to it, and they would continue to have no right to it forever, even if they had succeeded in killing Daphne Stilwell and occupying the land.

Last point I will respond to – You seem to think that if any individual dares to defend their own personal rights, (property, let us say), and it results in the death of any criminal, (“life”), that the victim has instantly become the criminal. You are ignoring (or are just ignorant of) the accepted standard that any offender against these universal values has forfeited, by his own actions, their protection. It is not a violation of the right to life that a criminal be executed, it is an affirmation of that right. He (the criminal) has attacked life, property, or freedom, (all of which by the way are merely attributes of living- existence, means of existence, quality of existence), and how can you conceivably expect that a criminal be honestly and correctly exalted by his victim?

After several re-readings of your replies, I can sadly only come to the conclusion that you desire the complete abolition of private property, freedom, and ultimately, you desire that my life be ended. You desire to rule other people (who are innately your peers), you desire to have power over them and their property, and to disguise your intentions you attempt to justify them with fancy masquerading as reason.

I cannot logically respond to nonsense, nor can I illustrate logic to one who will not think. I have no desire to waste my time, energy, nor to muddy my clothes. Accordingly, I decline to mud-wrestle.

Interesting. I do marvel at the way you managed to not only misinterpret my words, but claim the exact opposite of what I meant. It takes skill to twist words like that. I do hope, however, that it has not been made so intentionally. It is generally considered rude to put words in someone else’s mouth, especially if they are completely opposite of what has actually been said. For the sake of the comment thread, I shall assume all misinterpretations were honest mistakes.

First, a bit of semantics: I do not claim there are no absolutes. I bet there are, but I believe the true absolutes are not known to man. We assume based on what we witness and deduct from these assumptions to come to new insights and conclusions.

Let’s start with what seems to be the main issue here. What you missed, is the point that: people disagree. We disagree on certain notions, that much is clear. For instance, consider the following topics.

You seem to believe a universal truth is known to man about what is right and wrong. I read so from your words: “This country was founded on the principal that an entity greater than any human (in government or not) has established these rights for all humans”. However, I have difficulty interpreting your accusation that I uphold the same view. I believe that even though there might be universal truths about this, people do not know them. We cannot be sure of them. All we can do is believe in them. The fact that someone and their neighbours all believe in something, does not make it true. Please consider the fact that people can be wrong.

You seem to believe some rights, like life, freedom and property are universal and given to man. I believe that this is not so, but that man is very capable to try to gain those rights, seeing these rights are quite essential to a happy and safe life. Again, I have difficulty to understand how you come to the conclusion that a belief that rights are not universally given, would imply that these rights are not still important. I do believe that some rights, like life, freedom and property are valuable and should be gained and protected. However, I do not believe this can be done without inadvertently infringing on these very rights. I do not believe mankind is ready to live in a manner where every individual can have these rights safe and protected. So they need guarding. I believe these rights are not “universally given”, else the universe would’ve protected them itself, I would reckon. No, I believe these rights, important to a person’s wellbeing, should be claimed by people and protected by people. In my previous posts, I tried to relay how this acceptance of rights starts at an individual basis, but can only be sustained once it has grown to an entire people. I tried to relay that it is folly to assume that these rights are “given” and as such “irrevocable”. I believe that if enough people act in a destructive manner, everything we have gained and hold dear concerning our lives, freedom and protection, can be lost. I believe it is an individual’s task to make sure they themselves do not harm these rights they hold so dear, instead of trying to stop others doing so.

You seem to believe that you are entitled to defend your own rights. By your own rights, I simply mean everything you hold dear. I agree on this, you should defend it. However, and this is the point I try to get across, I believe that using violence to do this is, nine out of ten times, the most counterproductive way of doing it. Also, I believe that using violence to do this, may lead to you damaging the “rights” of another individual in a way that you had not intended.

You seem to believe that there is a general accepted standard that states that a criminal looses their right of protection of their life, freedom and property. I disagree and believe that every person alive has as much right to life, freedom and property as the other. I also believe that, because in reality this leads to unsolvable conflicts, it’s a good thing we have governments that can protect people from those that repeatedly endanger life, freedom and property (and whichever rights more). Also, I believe that the only reason the government can do anything to a person that threatens life, freedom and property is because the people that the government threatens – in case of the western world these would mostly be criminals – do not have the means or the power to stop the government. The government is relatively safe from retaliation.

You seem to believe violence is an acceptable tool to use. I disagree partially. You seem to be willing to wield it much more freely than I would. I would not usually consider violence by an individual to be in any way desirable. I believe most people cannot oversee the consequences of violence and are prone to using it wantonly if allowed to. I fear a society where people can commit manslaughter or murder simply because they claim the other was “on their turf”, “ogling their stuff” or “wooing their loved ones”. I do not fancy living in a society where vigilante and honor killing are condoned, because I do not trust the individual to make a good judgement when it comes to things they respond emotionally to. And I would certainly hate to be the one that has to hear a “Sorry I killed your loved one. I thought she was a burglar. I had no idea…”. And I would certainly hate to be expected to, as a result, kill to restore my honor after one of mine was slain.

You seem to accept that there is an inequality between people. Some people have “right” on their side and others do not. Some people are “criminals” and deserve no protections, where others are “noble citizens”. I consider this humbug. People are people. Yes, some people make errors. Others willingly commit crimes. Others follow the law to the letters. And still others try to live according to the best of their morale. But they are still all people. Who am I to “judge” one person “less” because of their actions? I am no god, I am a man. I am flawed and am prone to making err in judgement. What is considered “wrong” is often very dependent on culture, time and personal perspective. Who is the arbiter between two parties when both disagree? How can anyone be so bold as to state they have the moral high ground, without offering a solid basis for it? And frankly, when push comes to shove, I would certainly want an arbiter to be someone not emotionally involved.

All in all, we have different viewpoints, yes. And in essence, the most important aspects, we do seem to agree on. Many things are important enough to want to hold on to and defend. Where we differ in opinion is that I believe that it is up to man to define what these things are and how to defend them, where you believe that a Universal Right has dictated these already. Furthermore, I believe that it is very much undesirable to leave the tool of violence in the hands of an individual, whereas you wish to have it as a tool to defend your rights. I believe that the “me” need not be more important than the “other” and that using tools of violence risks the “me” to err and damage the “other” in a way that is wholly unjustified. Any reasoning that the “me” is allowed to take that risk, just doesn’t sink in with me.

Once again, let me express my thanks for your response, this time, in good hopes that you will refrain from further ad hominem. Your post was, to say the least, a nice example of how you wish to wield (verbal) violence in order to defend your rights. It is not needed here. I have no intention to “rob” you of your ideas. I do not wish to attack your person, merely confront any ideas I do not share or do not understand. I wish to share viewpoints. If you have no interest in discussion or such, keep it at that and keep it civil.

I feel the need to applaud your sense of logic and philosophy, Yerdiss. You’ve given the subject a lot of thought and given the information you have access to you’ve drawn a lot of interesting conclusions.

I do, however, not agree completely and see a few flaws in your thinking but ’tis mainly because we look at the problem from different points of views and have different foundations to stand on.

I found your ideas of perceived “rights” most interesting, since I haven’t given the subject much thought up till now. Not much more then a depressing statement back when I was a teen.

I’m glad to hear my little attempt at logic and philosophy is food for thoughts, Arafor. I always enjoy pondering such things. Indeed, I often take a very specific perspective and standpoint when writing, since that (ought to) leave more space for discussion and different opinions. It’s quite enjoyable when someone can debut an assumptions, refute a reasoning or disagree with an opinion. Through this, we learn ,-)

Ok… I have read everything in this chain of posts and replies and wanted to comment a bit to Yerdiss’s way and Sintra E’Dien’s one of thinking, especialy because I also wrote a post praising Tiny’s way of thinking about violence.

Before I enter in the discussion of the meaning of violence, I want you, Yerdiss, to think about these 2 stories, both of which are true and to reply to me what can one do without using violence him/herself:

1.Thieves. One time when I arrived home thieves were in my yard. At the sight of me they ran. I allerted the “higher autority”, didn’t use violence on them. The “higher authority”, the police, patrolled with a car the next day and that’s it. A month later thieves came back. This time I wasn’t home, nor was I close to get in time to see them. They stole my computer and some paintings made by my grandmother. Considering this they attented both to my property and to my family’s ideeas expressed in the form of those paintings. My grandmother is dead, she hasn’t painted a huge deal of paintings in life and as such those paintings are invaluable. My computer is a tool mostly, but a tool for which I, my mother, my grandmother even worked to get while the thieves got it without working for it, they therefor assumed the benefits of our work.
Called the police again, they came, saw things and said they’d look into things. Since then they have done nothing, I have not recived my belongings, both phizical and intelectual ones, I have not reciven excuses from the thieves, the thieves have not even recieved justice from this “gouvernment” you talk about. They have just recived the benefits of some other’s work.
Now tell me, how can one react in this situation?

2.A friend of my mother’s was run by a car on the zebra… I don’t know name, where you cross streets, those stripes on the road, while traversing the street on the colour green for her at the stoplight. By the laws issued by the allmighy gouvernment you speak about, the driver should have been sanctioned since he run over a person on the wrong light for him, on the zebra and while drunk and talking on the phone. My mother’s friend stood in hospital for 4 months and ended even now with a mental problem because of the damage done to her brain by the hit. Because of said mental problem, she could not sue the driver. Now according to the laws of my country in this case the state should itself issue a trial against the agressor. However the agressor, the driver, was a person who used his money to convince a judge to lower the accusations done against him and thus escape. Can we say that by paying said sum he “payed” for his crime? No, because said sum is just less then something he wins in a month, and if you’d say a human’s phizical body damage and mental damage is worth less then another’s person salary for their work in a month then… well I hope you’d not even say that actually.
So, the “gouvernment” has failed at their job to uphold the law and keep the stability. At this point tell me, what can be done without using violence?

I have given you 2 stories that are only from my life, that I have known and seen personaly, one experienced by my especialy and one by a person I know. These are not stories I took from tv or something, these things actually happened.

Your’re starting from the fact that the “gouvernment” upholds it’s job to preserve the stability, but I ask you, what happens when said “gouvernment” doesn’t do that? In the case of Daphne Stillwell, just like Sindra E’Drien said, the gouvernment of Stormwind did not care, and the Militia of Westfall was a group organised to battle the criminals through violence, thus taking the role of the state since said state did not manage to fulfill it’s role. However as you said, or as I understood it, those people did not have the right to defend themselves, they should have hoped the state or a “higher power” would have helped them while they did did not use violence.
Oh, you’re trying to take my land? Well I’ll make a petition and you’ll see! Oh, you’re trying to rape me? Well even though you are using violence against me I have faith the gouvernment will aid me while I do nothing. This ideeas are stupid to even think about, sorry to say it. If the gouvernment cannot uphold it’s role to support the laws it has written to make a stable land, then I am entitled to apply them. That is why in most countries (democratic) of the world, if a thief enters my house and tries to use force I have the right to kill him without any damage done to me. Because he/she has broken the laws of the gouvernment and said gouvernment could not support them, but I did. When the gouvernment can and does support the laws made by itself I have no problem NOT using violence, but when it can’t, you require violence to defend yourself, as you have said, they used violence and so they entered the circle of violence and should expect a violent response.

Also you speak that you don’t think that groups should use violence to impose their will amongst others, yet you say that the gouvernments are the strongest group who has gotten there by using violence and you, as an individual, should support the gouvernment by not using violence yourself? So I feel your points contradict themselves, you say groups shouldn’t impose their will using violence , yet when the most powerful group does, it should be supported? That’s what I understood from what you wrote, and by that logic my country should still be under communism since we should have supported them in their use of violence.

Overall I am sorry but I do not agree with anything you say. In fact the more I read what you wrote you remember me of some politicians that live in another world then us, the rest of the people, in a world where everything is perfect and there are few exceptions to anything. You talk about the gouvernment making sure people don’t use violence like a true fact everywhere, when in fact it’s not a true fact, it is an exception.

I just wanted to say my ideeas. So overall I don’t agree with anything you said, it just sounds like philozophical ideeas “what if all men were not violence users”. Well you don’t know what happened then, but how about if nobody but the state used violence, how about said state would profit and impose dictatorship only promoting their own “claims”, as you call them, and not the claims of those they gouvern?

Hmm, interesting post, I can see where you’re coming from, however, few things first. If you kill someone who is trying to rob you, you’re going to be tried and convicted as a murderer, that is unless you can prove without a doubt that you killed in self-defence. So you’ll either need witnesses or some very good luck.
Secondly I don’t think Yerdiss envisions the government as an institute that’s always right or willing to do the right thing. They’re just in charge and made the rules people “should” adhere to. What should also be noted is that a government does not keep individuals from using violence, nor do they “make sure that people don’t use violence”. Of course like most people you’ve seen and received the short end of the stick and the “guilty” parties run “free” and “unpunished”. Sadly that doesn’t mean you can take matters into your own hands and be completely right about it. Now I’m going to confess right up that my views are certainly not shared with everyone, nor will be liked by everyone.
Yes, it’s sad to say the least that some people just can’t keep their greedy little fingers away from your stuff. And yes, it’s at times maddening that people can get away with things any “sane” person with a decent bit of conscience finds just completely wrong. But isn’t that part of the discussion as well? Of course there’s always the discussion of what a person finds right or wrong.
I agree, I am terrified of the idea of coming home not only to find my private little sanctum invaded, but also some of my stuff gone. On the other hand, I can’t just start beating up the robber that I initially found at my house a few weeks before. I’m not even 100% sure he did it. Maybe he did, but that still would make it wrong since I don’t even have proof (unless said person is stupid enough to be flaunting the stuff he stole from my place).
And now comes a bit of a personal reaction. Yeah, I’d call the police on him if I’d know for sure. Sure I can “deal” with someone like that myself, but honestly, I’d rather not go into vigilantism. Beating the living daylights out of someone like that would not only put me on his level (doing something that’s actually kind of wrong), but also put me at some serious amount of risk of being persecuted myself. Does that sound twisted or wrong enough, don’t worry, it’ll keep getting better.
Now considering I’d use “physical abuse” aka violence to right my own hurt feelings because the thief stole something from me and violated a place I call home. How do these two compare? Let’s just imagine I’d break his arm and nose during my vengeance action. Would I feel better, relieved or just even more worried because now he’d be completely justified to press charges against me? And he may well have seen who I am, what I look like, and in the worst case, remember where I live.
Yeah, I think I’d rather count my losses and move on. Don’t get me wrong, I have been a victim of actual physical abuse in broad daylight, right in front of my front door at that. And yes, I do still much rather call the police then go ahead and take my feelings out on whoever did it.
Now to your last question, Wikipedia has a rather interesting entry on that. Also the entry on Wikipedia “Politics as a Vocation” is quite enlightening. I don’t know what it is like where you come from, but here we have something called the separation of powers. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. This is to prevent abuse of power. Of course we can take a look at plenty of dictatorships to see that democracy certainly isn’t the only form of state and that a government isn’t always a benefactor but as Yerdiss correctly states, a group that simply holds the most power. Ironically this is true for a democracy as well.

What you touch are the conflicts between “Wanting to act” and “acting responsibly” on an individual level. What I try to put in my posts are the premises of our way of living on the scale of a country, or groups of people. Unfortunately, the way we have organised this is far from perfect, but still I do not see an alternative that “solves” the problems I see with our current society without introducing graver problems instead.

As to the first part of your post, how to respond to situations where you are confronted by acts that you do not wish, and want to stop. For instance, thievery, injustice, or physical threats. I do not believe that you should never act. I do believe that should you choose to act, any consequences must be accepted. Accept that your assessment of the situation can be wrong and accept anything that comes your way as a result. Maybe, however, your assessment is completely right and an action (of violence) solves the problem. Of whether this will be true, I cannot give a single answer, except “It might be, but I fear that often, it won’t be perfect. Worst, sometimes, people afterwards wish they hadn’t”.

That’s kind of the core of my opinion on the individual level: since you never know if your actions are going to have the desired results and it is often very well possible to err in judging a situation in which you might want to use violence, it is a very real chance that, after using violence, bad stuff will happen to you. If you actively choose this and are willing to accept any consequences, then by all means, do what you must!

So in case of encountering people in your garden that might want to steal your stuff, ask yourself this before using violence: “What will I loose if I won’t and what might I loose if I do? Is it worth it? Will using violence actually solve the problem?” You might chase away two thieves by using violence. However, you might end up being branded a criminal yourself, because the justice system can “prove” you beat up some guys, but cannot “prove” those guys did something that warranted such violence. If you cannot accept being fined or jailed, then maybe violence is not the best tool to “chase away the thieves”. However, if you’d rather pay a fine or such, than loose something of true value, then violence might well be worth it. It’s not that you should never use it, but that using it without asking yourself this question first, might end up making you very miserable.
Furthermore, if you do decide violence is worth it, the question of whether it will actually solve things, is even more troublesome. Will chasing away two thieves chase away every thief? Can you use violence every time and are you willing to? If you use violence, get to pay a price and a few months later, some other douche breaks in and steals your stuff when you’re not at home, the only thing your violence did was stall. Maybe it was worth it to prevent a theft, but was it worth it to merely delay it? Answer that question before you turn to violence.

So if you pondered and answered these questions – or have done in advance – and your conclusion is “hell yeah”, then by all means, use violence. But do accept any consequence that your violence leads to, even if it makes you miserable. You have chosen that route yourself.

Trouble is, sometimes things happen that we do not want to happen. We want to have control, but our control is limited. Using tools that give us more control is great and if violence is this tool, then sure, use it. Just know what you use and what it might lead to. However, using tools to only get an “illusion of control” is bound to disillusionment. The sour feeling that not only did you fail to get control on the situation, you made it worse, is a feeling I would want to help people prevent. Or at least, temper it by having people think before acting, so that when push comes to shove, they can say “I chose this, I can deal with it.”

That was individual level. Now, individual level is simple but limited. When you put a lot of people together, violence becomes a very nasty thing. And this is something I choose to spent a lot of lines on as well. What I did was express an opinion on how I think governments are “inevitable”. Now matter what you do, there will always be a group that takes control. Now, my personal preference is not that the group that controls me is perfect, because I do not have the illusion that this will ever be or that I can make it so. No, I would want that the group that controls me to be “better than having no group in control”. When living in an oppressive regime, I can fathom that it might feel better to have no group, to have every individual have to fight for everything they want, and to have no sense of security and nobody to turn to for help if you get victimised. This is not the situation where I live, I am “content enough”. So I’d want to at least preserve this, if not improve on it.

So, I relay that the governments that we have in the western world do help. At least, they sometimes manage to prevent violence, punish perpetrators, etc. Sometimes, not always. They are not perfect, just “better than nothing”. More than zero criminals still get caught, more than zero victims still get at least a bit of justice, more than zero people get protected from violence by the presence of a police force or military. More than zero, but not even close to all.

So, any claim that the government is perfect, I do not support. Nor have I ever said so myself. Though, any claim that our western governments are worthless because they are not perfect, I do not support either. They still make our lives better then it would’ve been without a government. And while we might believe that other governments may be even better, I myself would want to want to hear how it might be made better before I decide to support a “our government sucks” movement. Removing it might remove an imperfect organisation, but in no way is improvement a certainty if all we do is “remove the old and hope for a better new”.

So, based on the opinion that I value having a government that, while not perfect, still makes my life better than it would be without, I would be wary in performing any actions that undermine this. Actions that might benefit me in the short run, might cost me dearly in the long run, if they result in reduced stability of the environment I live in. Now, I believe violence by individuals, especially wanton violence, is a danger to the security and stability of our nations. So when people fancy pondering on the topic, I tried to share my views on why violence might be a danger. That way, it’s more than just a statement and people can read my deduction. Whether they agree, I don’t know, but at least feedback might be more constructive than “I don’t agree”. People that do not agree might be able to indicate why not.

So, to summarise:
– If you get into any situation where you are tempted to use violence, first ask yourself “Is there another means that is effective enough to get me what I want?”. If so, the rule of thumb I use is, non-violent with the same result beats violence any day. If no other options are apparent, then ask yourself “is it worth it and will it actually do the job?” If no, try to just accept that life sucks sometimes and sometimes we just don’t have control. If the answer is yes again, then use violence. Sometimes, our hands are forced, but we should do it consciously. You want to be able to say “I know what I did, I chose this, I stand by my choice, regardless the consequences”.

Add to this my opinion that most people skip the first two questions and jump to the “Yeah yeah, I know what I do, I choose this, fuck the consequences”, I feel that a warning is warranted :)

Tialin, I cannot respond to your topic, seems it only lets us respond to other people a limited amount of times so I’ll respond to my other post and hope you see it.

Ok, I didn’t say I should go and beat the people that were in my yard a few weeks before the robbing, I do not say that, however what if I found the ones that actually did the robbing? I admit I don’t know what I would do.

True, you can’t kill anyone unless in self-defense, but if you find someone you don’t know in your house, would you not find him/her a threat? Of course I don’t suggest jumping on said person right away, but as soon as you discover that said person is there to steal from you and will stop at nothing, trying to attack you, this means there should be a reaponse. In this moment it’s either kill or be killed. Myabe thieves in your country are not so violent, here though they are and around 90% of cases if the owner sees the thief, said thief will attack the owner after beeing caught, and not taking these statistics out of my hat. So at this moment you can either sit and be beaten, killed, raped, tortured (all things that do happen) or you can respond in equal terms beating the thief and if he’s truly a danger striking him/her down.

I don’t agree with some things you said either, but everyone with their own view in the end.

How things work in my country… well here,we have the president, which plays for his political party, we have the gouvernment, from which all members are from the president’s political party and clearly play for the party, and we have the parliament, where the party in power has majority of seats along with another party they promised some stuff. What’s left… oh yes, the juridical side, yes, well the political party has 3/5 members at constitutional court, the judges got their salaries reduced and they were threatened when they wanted to go on strike, so I’d say this part is under the one political party too. Did I miss anything? YES, we’re a democracy in the EU, where all 3 powers in the state are controlled by one single party. We’re also applying censorship to press and using secret police to listen to people.
In fact in a raport of the World Bank it was said our budget is oversized and used to feed the leechers of said party. Here, I’ll give you a hint to guess where I live. France sent us and our neighbour the Roma people that were building shacks in France giving them 100-200 euros or something. One of our ministers said it’s good because those people come here, spend the money, and then go back and get more for free! And this way their also bring money into the country.
Yes, I heard about separation of powers. It only takes 1 person to change that. Hitler was voted in Germany by the people.

Reading your last post, Frostsaben, I get the feeling we all actually agree, but emphasise different points. You emphasise the reality in which you must act and add as a nuance that you do try to make your act appropriate to the situation. I agree on that, it’s a true way of dealing with things. I myself approached this very same conclusion from another angle: not knowing the reality of someone else’s situation, I just hope people think before they act. If thinking leads to the conclusion that your reality and current situation leave you no choice, I am not adverse to violence. I still am adverse to telling others to use violence without explaining when they should and when they shouldn’t. Saying “I killed someone that stole from me” can mean very different things. I would agree if you add “They broke into my house and when they saw me, I felt my life threatened and had to respond”. I would not agree if you add, “I was walking through an ally and some kid picked my pocket. So I shot him through the skull, since I was wearing a piece anyway.” Two different situations, two different conclusions.

I accept that your personal situation, as you have explained it in your last post, offering details that allow me to more easily accept the need for you, or other individuals in the same situation, to respond using force. Also, I accept that your country seems to be a fine example of a government that is not only “not perfect” but very clearly flawed and most likely not sustainable unless by using inappropriate violence. I’ll add a bit of opinion that I have only implicitly mentioned before: Monopoly of violence is a requirement of state. In the case of a bad state, this can be a bad thing! Yes, true. That does not make changing the situation any less hazardous though. When using violence to respond to a bad regime, odds are your country will, for a period of time, be very unpleasant and dangerous to live in. Again, first the questions of whether other, non-violent manners of changing said government are possible. And yes, it is true that this is not always possible. If the state suppresses such non-violent change by using violence first, they will have forced the people’s hands.

Tialin emphasises an example of how governments can be balanced. You respond with an example of how this can be ruined. Both are possible truths and both viewpoints are needed in the discussion. So I do agree with both of you, as long as we accept each as examples and not as the only way things can be. A situation in a country can be anything ranging from terrible to rather okay. I live in a country where things are rather okay, and still I see a lot of things I find flawed and prone to abuse. I see a lot of dangers in which things can change for the worse.

To anyone living in a country where the situation is bad, I interpret Tialin’s post and known my post to agree on your stance. Just realise that “being discontent” is only one side of the medal and still a long way from “knowing how to improve” or actually “being able to improve”. Since that is an entirely different discussion altogether :)

So all in all, it mostly seems we disagree on examples that do not fit our own situations, but agree on the general guideline that one should think before acting and on the apparent truth that, simply because things could be good, they do not need to be. Actually, they could be outright crappy.

Sorry I didn’t see your post before mine Yerdiss, I wrote slow and then just pressed submit and went to bed so didn’t realise it was another post. Anyway, yes I do agree that one should consider every situation before acting, but in some cases violence can’t be avoided and those are the cases when thinking about it and acting violently doesn’t make one fear for consequences because it was a resonable response.

I understand you wrote here that we should “think before acting and consider all possible outcomes”, this beeing my shortened version of what you wrote, something I agree with. However in earlier posts I probably understood wrong since I thought you said there are no situations at all, ever, where you can use violence, and this is why I tried to combat your point, since I didn’t agree on that.

And yes, my country is crappy. That’s putting it mildly actualy, but I do hope to leave after I finish the Master degree… maybe even before if I have an opportunity.
Well, that’s most of what I had to say. :)

Thank you for another great page, as usual i always love to see when your characters grows. Also im probably just as anyone else eager to see another page come up, but really it is all up to you when you have time, or feel for it :)

Maybe a bit off topic, but now when cataclysm is just around the corner. I dont know how you do the backgrounds or settings for your pages. But there gonna be a lot of changes in many areas, do you have a plan for that or will you just try to bypass it in some way?
Now we are in Westfall, this area going over a huge overhaul but maybe the party will leave before that.

Next tthing that comes to mind is, i kinda suspect that you at some point would return to Wolfrunner and Delgren in Ashenvale, wich also going to look a lot different.

P.S sorry for crappy english, but i hope most of you understand what i mean.

I have a few thoughts on how I might try to work with it; nothing final yet, though time is starting to run out. Since Beyond the Tree is set quite a few years before Cataclysm, I’ll ultimately either need to avoid it or find some way to minimize the impact.

You can play on some free server. However, you have to have second, older client version somewhere installed, and free servers are often unstable and full of bugs, but for taking sceneries this may be enough.

And as to usage of violence: it’s complicated. It’s not always wrong or right! The best way to decide if it is either right or wrong, is probably to take a careful look to what happened in the past of the ones involved. In Te’lens case, it quite justifies her, I would like to think.

Oh, and by the way… wouldn’t it be funny to see Jordan Stilwell on the very moment he recieved the order of making a Gnome Paladin Armor? Or at least seeing him work it in shape? Could immagine he was quite flabbergasted when he got that assignment, wouldn’t he?

One of the things i love about this series is the character development or more accurately the manner in which they develop most series have people spouting of morals and beliefs often while fighting and when the hero or sometimes another person beat the other they are either proven right and often convert the to their person to their belief. Areen, Te’len seem to be changing Hanis views on how to deal with people and enemies in general very subtly they are not offers poems on how life is sacred and are rarely getting preachy and when Hani does change or act differently it is very minor and without fanfare all of this is wonderfully realistic and what makes this series so good.

I also have a theory some elves can be born from a union between demon and night elf or corrupted while still in the womb when raised by elves they tend to be treated with a certain lack of trust and are often raised to be very structured with morals and laws drilled into their heads so as to hopefully kurb their demonic violent impulses. Part of me wonders if tani is like this might explain the natural strength or she could just have worked hard but might also explain how she is just slightly alien to the basic morality line that almost everyone else subscribes to.Or i could just be coming up with absurd theories who knows?

Comics of Amusement

Random Blogs of Interest

Essential box of legalities

Beyond the Tree is based on (when not directly using) the art resources and story setting of World of Warcraft by Blizzard Entertainment.

That and all related and/or registered trademarks are the property of Blizzard Entertainment and Beyond the Tree claims no ownership of these or any affiliation with Blizzard Entertainment but hopes they'll have a sense of humour and appreciate it all the same ;)